Modi’s Fudge and Eyewash

TSophistry and self delusion denote Narendra Modi’s statements about Pakistan and ‘terrorism’, and the regional and global contexts that both countries operate in. Modi, while outlining India’s foreign policy at the second edition of the Raisina Dialogue, had enjoined Pakistan to “give up terrorism”, underlined India’s reluctance to “walk the path of peace alone” , extolled India’s efforts to
“uphold international peace”, gloated over India’s long-maintained distinction between so called “good and bad terror”. The Indian Prime Minister also alluded to Pakistan’s isolation and attempted to reach out to China. If Modi’s statements are reflective and indicative of India’s foreign policy and its regional dimension, then two facts stand out. (There are both discursive and ‘real’ components to it). First, consider Modi’s self serving use of the term “terrorism”. Consensus eludes the definition of this term; the term is too wide and elastic. This very fact allows states to employ and instrumentalise it for their purposes and interests. Moreover, securitization of term- especially in a post 9/11 and the conditions that have emerged following the second Gulf War- allows states to use it as a catch all rubric and umbrella term to collapse genuine issues into it as employ the term as a bogey man. Modi is precisely doing the same. The larger aim appears to be to subsume the conflict in and over Kashmir into this flawed definitional rubric and attribute it to Pakistan. Our second point flows from this. If Modi thinks that flawed and specious discursive reasoning would isolate Pakistan, then this is wishful thinking. There is more to the country that meets the eye. The geopolitical conditions that obtain in the contemporary world and the South Asian region militate against the isolation of Pakistan. While the country might not be a pivotal state, it is a swing state whose foreign policy orientation and nature has the potential to determine, to a large extent, the nature, thrust and direction of the South Asian region. All this is not to defend Pakistan but to accord a sense of proportion and perspective. The larger goal and aim of both Pakistan and India should be peace, stability and prosperity in South Asia and by extension, the world at large. This end goal warrants prudence, sobriety and a sense of proportion in the world views, orientation and foreign policies of both countries and not self-serving cant. Both India and Pakistan’s foreign policies must be predicated and informed by reality. This reality is that there is deep friction and frisson between the two emanating from sovereign and legacy issues. Central to these issues is the conflict in and over Kashmir. It is to the resolution of this conflict that political and diplomatic energy should be expended upon. The rest is mere fudging and eyewash.

“Consensus eludes the definition of this term (terrorism); the term is too wide and elastic. …. The larger aim appears to be to subsume the conflict in and over Kashmir into this flawed definitional rubric and attribute it to Pakistan.”

This write up is flawed ab initio. There is no DISAGREEMENT as to 1.2b Indian’s, regarding the definition of “Terrorism”. It is clearly defined under sec. 2(1) (h) r/w sec. 3 (1) of “The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 as under:

“3 (1) Whoever with intent to overawe the Government as by law established or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people or to alienate any section of the people or to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature in such a manner as to cause, or as is likely to cause, death of, or injuries to, any person or persons or loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community, or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in order to compel the Government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act.”

For democratically elected governments and in a democratic society the term ‘Terrorism’ includes:

(a) The Act of generating – ‘terror’, “great fear”, “dread” or “to frighten” the general public;
(b) It is use of violence or threat of violence in order to purport a political, religious, or ideological change;
(c) It also includes acts committed by non-state actors or undercover personnel serving on the behalf of their respective governments as an undeclared war;
(d) It is also a criminal act which reaches more than the immediate target victims and is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society;
(e) Terrorism include both mala prohibita (i.e. crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e. crime that is inherently immoral or wrong)

Opinion about any party by Media, ruling or in opposition, is alright. It is also acceptable when Media questions any Law framed by due legislation to express public opinion, if it doesn’t disturb the public order? However, when Media house particularly oppose or misquote on law to sway the public opinion, it is considered as on wrong side of the public opinion and required to be checked?

Subscribe by Email

Search in Archive

Select a MonthSelect a CategorySearch with Google

Stay with us

About

Launched in May 2012, Kashmir Reader is one of the leading English language newspapers of Jammu and Kashmir. It’s published daily from Srinagar by Helpline Group, which earned a name and fame in serious journalism